Originally Posted by dingy
hi,man
i do non wanta agnoy you,
but the knife is not made only for cutting!!!!!
choping ,cutting batoning ,prying······
knife , is a multi-Purpose tool.
In referring the Kitchen knife, i gusse i am with you
I think this sums it up. In this thread there seems to be the knife is just for cutting camp and there is the Farm-Tough/Survivalist knife camp. Like the North and the South, we will debate who's knife philosphy is the best for ages to come.
To each his own.
Don't Tread on Me.
Crk lost Rep to Farm-Tough/Survivalist knife camp, not necessarily to the collector-cut only camp or military folks.
And at this point (End of 2009) it is win-win because the Farm-Tough/Survivalist knife camp wants to see it gone and the folks in the just for cutting camp will see the value of their CRK go up.
Actually I'm from both camps.
Certain knives are made with certain intended uses; and depending upon that intended use, their strength is accorded.
CRK makes some of those "Farm-Tough Survivalist knives" you were talking about (a Swiss Army Knife is one of those, too, btw. But I'd never beat on it with a hammer).
Every knife can be a Survival Knife as long as you understand what utility it has to you.
From what I can tell CRK didn't lose "rep" to people who understand this line of thinking. CRK knives are still pinnacle quality, with pinnacle materials.
Try hard enough and you can break anything. That is the issue that I have with knife"tests".com. They aren't trying to "test" knives, they're trying to break them.
I'd take a CRK knife into the wilderness with me any day. They're proven as good knives. They have a track record of quality and so does the man that produces them.
...and I'm on of those hard core "farm tough survivalist knife" guys.
But I'm first and foremost one thing: someone who makes a point to understand the purpose of the knives he buys and owns.
Some knives are made for chopping, batoning, etc... (Busse, Swamp Rat, Scrap Yard, Becker, RC, a bunch more) and if you look at them, they all have a VERY different design than a CRK folder. They're designed with the
INTENT to that kind of work. Even the CRK hollow handled fixed blades are designed with that intent.
But anybody who knows anything about using a knife to split wood knows you don't do it with a hammer. That's just common sense.
Some knives are not made for chopping, et al... And that's the important part: you don't treat them like they are.
It's like a guy who tries to tow a camper with a Ferrari...you're asking for trouble. Sure the Ferrari is a high quality car, but it wasn't built or intended to tow campers. So when you tear it up, it's because you were using in a manner OTHER THAN INTENDED.
I think a lot of people are after Chris Reeves' hide for one thing: they can't understand why he charges what he does for his knives. Simple: because he can.
They can't fathom paying $400 dollars for a knife, so they don't believe it's worth it to do so; and anybody else that does is a goober. To them anyway.
So they try to justify their ideals by running the knife down, trying to point out flaws that don't exist, etc...just to say: "See, it's not worth the money."
When in reality, it's worth whatever you pay for it. Because the person that buys it, is the person that wants it; and it's worth that price to him (or her in some cases).
If you want to test a knife, do it in a controlled environment against a similar make. Knock out all the extraneous variables and nuisance variables. Then design a test with a control and an independent variable. Then you have a real TEST.
Someone earlier said something to the effect of: "I doubt there'd be this much outcry over a lesser priced knife." I disagree with that. I think the outcry comes from the form of "testing" and claims based from the results. A Kershaw Skyline is a great knife, and costs WAAAAAAAAAAAY less than a Sebenza, Mnaandi, or other CRK knife--but I know I'd still feel the same if some guy said it was crap just because they beat the piss out of it with a hammer and it broke.